Tue writer on the trade of Chinkiang, on whose remarks in the Bvening Courier we took occasion sometime ago to ani-advert, has apparently returned to the subject, and in an able and interesting article has shown bow much the prosperity of the port has advantaged by the export trade in rice during the years 1871-72. The argiment produced is in fact inexpugnable; and with the conclusions we perfectly agree: namely that the inbabit ants of certain districts, having found a good market for their surplus products, were able to purchase a corres-pendingly large amount of other goods, amongst which foreign piece goods formed no inconsiderable portion. We would only ask the writer one question, and leave to himself the duty of working out the matter to a fair conclusion. Why should he draw the line at rice It cannot be alleged that rice, during the period in question, was a constituent of what has been called a bona fide foreign trade. None of the rice exported from Chinkiang went to other than Chinese ports, and the connection of foreigners with it was accidental, not essential. For our own part, we are unable to perceive any essential difference between rice from Chinkiang and pea oil and lily flowers from Poh. chow. In the one case, the inbabit ants of the districts near Chinkiang were able, owing to finding a market for their goods at Canton and Swatow, to take a very much greater quantity of foreign goods than they otherwise could have paid for. In the other case, the people about Pobchow, on account of finding a market for their lily flowers and other such trash (if the writer chooses to designate it as such), in Chinkiang, were able to buy there much larger amount of piece goods than they previously could afford. Practically, the trade was a barter one, and when it first commenced was actually so, the dealer in piece goods at Chinkiang actually exchanging goods for produce. Of course, the course of trade soon did away more or less with the purely barter portion of the transaction; the country goods were put on the market, and purchased by dealers in those peculiar articles, who made over the proceeds to the countrymen, or more frequently to the agents of the piece goods dealers. It was not to be expected or desired that foreigners should deal in the commodities which came down; a Chinaman would be at a loss at a pig fair in Ireland, though eventually he might be largely interested in the result. We are not to be considered as saying a word in favour of the foreigners who acted as intermediaries getting out transit passes. We neither blame them nor the reverse. Their action supplied the missing link necessary in the trade, and thereby enabled a business to be carried on which, without this, would have had no existence. The real culprit in the case we have always held to be the Chinese Government, which places its own people at a disadvantage as regards foreigners. So far as bona fide foreign trade is concerned, the profits and fees which went into foreign hands in the way complained of, were all so many taxes on business. Heavy as they were, they were not so bad as the loads imposed by the paternal government of China. The remedy lies with the Intter. If it will deal fairly with its own people, it will have no need to complain of foreigners making declarations which, with a pious regard for truth in the abstract that assorts but badly with its own action, it declares now false and unwary ranted. The Jackdaw of Rheims had the good grace to be himself converted, before setting up as a model of probity.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.